This, as I pointed out when Rupert Murdoch took the stand, is the Leveson Inquiry's dirty secret. It's not a public execution. It's a probing examination of the world of media and politics, by QCs who are not always entirely familiar with way it works. That means that on occasion, it's rather dull, and on occasion, its witnesses emerge on top.

Frederic Michel, the News Corporation lobbyist at the centre of a row over the Government’s handling of a proposed takeover of BSkyB, paid a visit to Downing Street, Andy Coulson has told the Leveson Inquiry.

The Prime Minister’s former communications chief said in his witness statement he had met Mr Michel “on a few occasions for coffee including one occasion, possibly, in No.10”.

Giving evidence, he clarified his comment, saying: "Once in government I do recall talking to him, albeit briefly, in my office. I can't find a formal record of this meeting and it could well be that he was seeing someone else and popped in."

He said he never discussed News Corp’s BSkyB bid with Mr Michel, but confirmed weekend reports that Mr Michel had set up a meeting between Mr Cameron and the former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar, a board member of News Corp.

The meeting took place in November 2009, as News Corp was preparing to announce its bid to buy the 61 per cent of shares in BSkyB it did not already own. The meeting was not declared by the Conservatives.

16.49 The Telegraph's chief reporter Gordon Rayner writes:

David Cameron personally took part in the vetting of Andy Coulson before his controversial appointment as his communications chief, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Mr Cameron rang the former News of the World editor when he was on holiday and asked him about the phone-hacking scandal over which he had resigned. In the same phone call he told him “background security checks had been made”.

But Mr Cameron did not ask him whether he held any shares in News International or related companies, and Mr Coulson admitted he had retained shares in News Corporation while he worked in Downing Street, which he now sees as a potential conflict of interest.

16.34 Andy Coulson has now finished giving evidence and the hearing is finished for today. It will resume tomorrow, when we will hear from Rebekah Brooks.

16.33 Lord Leveson thanks Mr Coulson for attending and says he understands why the process has been a difficult one for him

16.26 Leveson asks Mr Coulson whether he feels the relationship between the press and politicians has become too close. Coulson replies:

The Prime Minister himself has said that he accepts he got too cosy and I'm not minded to disagree with him. It's perfectly clear now that the relationship with the media has got in the way of the message

What you do about it is abundantly difficult. I would hate to think that any more barriers would be erected between politics and the press. I think you've only got to look at the turn out in last week's local elections: people are disengaging with politcs. If you erect more barriers...that's going to get an awful lot worse. Some people may say that turn out is the result of this inquiry. I'm not sure I buy that theory.

I sincerely hope, with respect, that the result of this part of the inquiry does not erect yet more barriers between what is already a pretty difficult process.

Lord Leveson says he is very keen to ensure politicians have a mechanism to identify what their policies are and to seek to engage the public in them, and that journalists have the ability and responsibility to hold politicians and others to account. "The question is how to ensure that that happens in an open, transparent and appropriate way," he says.

Mr Coulson replies he is troubled by the idea that a friendship always suggests some ulterior motive is going on. He adds that "what's happened over the course of the last year or so" is going to solve the problem of transparency. "The possibility now of politicians not being transparent about their dealings with the media, the events that have come to pass will go a long way in dealnig with that," he says.

Leveson adds that if he felt the Inquiry had brought about this transparency and he "could go back to productive judicial work", he "would be very pleased with that".

16.20 Mr Coulson ask if he can make one point in relation to the "theory" there was some sort of deal between News International and the Conservatives over issue of BSkyB:

If there was a deal and there was a conspiracy, why was Vince Cable given the job? It was the Prime Minister's gift to decide who held which brief in his cabinet. If there was this conspiracy running, that David Cameron was going to somehow or another return a favour, why on earth would be have given it to - and I choose my words carefully- a combatative member of the cabinet.

16.12 The Inquiry is now hearing about Matt Driscoll's employment tribunal.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Ben Fenton - Coulson now being asked about the Matt Driscoll bullying case. Says he regrets he wasn't asked to give evidence at tribunal.&lt;/noframe&gt;

16.09 The Inquiry hears Mr Coulson was involved in policy in terms of how it would be played out in the media. Did this mean there was an undue focus on the reaction to policy rather than policy itself?

"Possibly. If anyone was thinking in those terms I guess it would be me, as the person responsible for communications," Mr Coulson says.

Was this a significant aspect or has it been overplayed, Mr Jay asks.

"I don't think that it's necessarily a significant problem. I think that political parties have to, in the modern media, fight hard to get their message across. And also there's a personaily aspect in politics that has probably increased over the years. That required for me a lot of attention."

16.06 We did not brief in terms of people's private lives, Mr Coulson says.

In my conversations with journalists I certainly wouldn't hide my political views. But no, I don't believe I did that.

So you would never seek to spin, indulge, brief...? Mr Jay prompts.

I thought the question was did I brief against people on a personal basis? I don't believe I did, beyond their politics.Did I have strong views... and would I express them? I think I probably would. But I don't believe I did so inappropriately.

16.03 Mr Jay asks about people going "through the back door" at Downing Street.

"I think it happened under previous administrations and I think it happened automatically," Mr Coulson replies.

Is there a list of back door people and front door people, Leveson asks with a smile.

"I've got to keep myself entertained Mr Coulson," he jokes.

16.00 Relating to the BSkyB bid, did he know Vince Cable's views on the bid before it was published?

15.45 After he had seen the front page, he believes he had a conversation with Dominic and another with Rebekah Brooks either that evening or the next day.

It's not the headline or timing I would have chosen, Coulson says.

I was more interested in the impact on the Conservative Party. I remember very well searching for a pro-Cameron headline and I think it was in a sub-text somewhere.

I wouldn't describe it as jubilation, but it wasn't a bad day in the office. I was have preferred they did it in a diferent way and at a different time.

This would have been during the Conservative conference, he explains.

Mr Jay: Did you then feel you had secured the major prize you have been employed to secure?

"No, I didn't feel that way at all."

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Sun front page Labour's Lost It was not the front page I would have chosen. Too negative, wd hv preferred something about how good Tories wr&lt;/noframe&gt;

15.38 The decision was going to be made by Murdoch, heavily advised by Rebekah Brooks, Mr Jay states.

I think I probably would have taken the view it would have been a combination of views. But obviously Rupert Murdoch would have had a part in that.

Says he thinks its fair to say it involved Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks. May also have involved Dominic Mohan.

I'm not suggesting for a second that conversations with Rebekah were not in any way influential. I didn't have any conversations with James Murdoch [save for one he has documented] and certainly didn't have a regular line of communication to him at all.

I'm not for a second suggesting Rupert Murdoch was not a fundamental part of a decision process.

I wasn't party to the meetings and discussions that took part at News International.

Rupert Murdoch was, he is sure, and suggests he would have had "strong views".

Leveson suggests it would take a strong character for an editor to hear Murdoch's views and make a 180 degree turn against them.

"It would be a bold move, yes," Coulson says.

14.35 You know it would take time to secure the Sun's support, Mr Jay asserts. Mr Coulson agrees.

Through 2007 and 2008 the Sun remained at times doggedly supportive of Gordon Brown. In that regard it was certainly clear to me it was going to be a long process.

He says it is fair to say it would be a "big moment" for the Sun when they switched to the Tories. But, he adds, the paper switching to support Blair was arguably a bigger shock: "Actually returning o the Conservatives in a way was less of a shock"

15.32 I certainly don't remember a moment when I felt an endorsement was secure and didn't view it as Mrs Brooks' "gift to give", Coulson says.

There was a conversation between Mr Cameron and James Murdoch in which we were told they would be supporting us

15.30 We would have had conversations with Mr Myler of the NOTW and others in the hopes of securing their endorsement, he says.

15.29 Says he doesn't recall Cameron asking him again about "Goodman/Mulcaire matter" after Guardian article

15.29 Did you have any access to information marked top secret or above?

"I may have done yes."

15.26 The Inquiry is hearing about the value of Coulson's News Corp stocks. Their gross value is around £40,000 he says, having checked it in preparation for the hearing.

Why do you think you overlooked them, Mr Jay asks.

My job in opposition was a busy one. My job in government was busier still. I didn't take the time to pay attention to my own circumstances in this regard and I should have done"

He did not discuss their existence with anyone in government or civil servant, he says.

15.15 The Inquiry is now taking a short break - we'll be back very shortly.

15.13 Don't you agree there is at least a valid basis for the perception this closeness is unhealthy?

The word unhealthy implies impropriety and I'm not sure I agree with that.

Things are going to change, things have already changed and I think that process might have already begun while I was there. We were the first government to be transparent about the meetings we had with the media.

15.11

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Cameron "frequently" expressed disgruntlement that he had to spend time schmoozing journalists.&lt;/noframe&gt;

Did Cameron ever mention a feeling he was getting too close to a particular media group, Mr Jay asks. Coulson indicates not.

You must have been surprised then when Cameron publicly said "we had all" got too close to News Int, Mr Jay speculates.

15.10 Coulson is now venturing into politics:"Obviously politicians set out to keep their promises," he says, adding the Coalition government has made it more difficult.

15.09 Brooks is a constituent of Cameron and there is a fairly well established family connection, Coulson says.

15.06 In order to secure the support of the Sun, the best "in" was Rebekah Brooks, Mr Jay says.

"I wouldn't describe it in that way," Coulson says. "You can't rely on a call to an editor to guarantee anything and nor should you."

Instead, you should build a relationship whereby I you have something positive to say you give yourself the best chance of it being heard.

"I think the party had a very good relationship with the Guardian", he said. He would not necessarily say the same of the Mirror. "We wanted to touch as many readerships as we could to get our message across."

15.02 The Sun in particular was of interest to Cameron, Mr Jay says. Mr Coulson says this was because of its circulation.

I took a view that there were a number of other newspapers that we needed to work hard to gain the support of. I didn't look at my working day and analyse it based on circulation. I put a lot of effort into trying to secure the Sun. I did the same with the Mail. I put a lot of time and effort into trying to secure the Telegraph.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy the theory that a newspapers view will definitely influence its readers directly.

I think we wanted the support of the Sun. We wanted the support of as many newspapers as we could. Work had to be put into that.

Newspapers were not the only focus by any measure. Television was fundamentally important to us from the off.

15.01 Colin Myler was not considered to be "onside", the Inquiry hears.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: T Portilho-Shrimpton - Coulson: my understanding through conversations with colleagues was that he (Colin Myler) was more likely to be left-leaning &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#leveson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noframe&gt;

14.59 In order to get your message across to the Sun, the best lightning rod was Mrs Brooks, Jay muses.

If you have an opportunity to talk to an editor, Coulson comments, "you will try and sell yourself in the best possible light".

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Jay: you were friends with Brooks, had a warm r'ship with Murdoch, was that not the real reason they wanted you?C: can't read Osborne's mind&lt;/noframe&gt;

14.48 Osborne says he wanted Coulson to meet with Mr Cameron, the Inquiry hears. Doesn't it pass through your mind, Mr Jay asks, why are they asking me to do this?

I was dealing in issues, I ran campaigns. I hope or - at least aimed to be - in tune with a readership that is vast. I'm sure those things were attractive.

"The route from journalism into politics..." he adds. "I was hardly a pioneer."

Referring to the NOTW, he says: "I'm sure that the conversation would have touched on my previous employers in some way."

It was the elephant in the room, wasn't it, Mr Jay asks.

"No."

14.43 You had no political experience, did you, Mr Jay asks. What qualities did you bring to the table? Coulson replies:

I was an editor of a national newspaper, I had been in newspapers for a long time. I had motivated a team, had a hand in running the business... I'm sure those were considerations.

The conversation was not 'Andy, here's why we think you're going to be great' but 'what do you think we need to do to get elected'. In truth it didn't feel like an interview at all. It felt like they were interested in hiring me.

So he had already identified you as the man the Conservative Party wanted, Mr Jay pushes.

You're a newspaper man, Leveson says, did you not see this interview as selling yourself?

I didn't really see it as an interview, Coulson replies.

14.40 Some time after his resignation, the Inquiry hears he received commiserations from Blair and Brown, but does not recall receiving any from Cameron.

Later, he met Osborne for a drink and was asked whether he would be interested in joining the team.

He approached me with a view that I would be a positive asset rather than a negative one, I'm sure

At that stage, he says, he did not know whether anyone else was in teh running for the job. He was later told there had been a discussion between Cameron and a BBC journalist, but for "whatever reason" it didn't work out.

14.37 He has never resigned before, he says, so is not familiar with the manner of separating out payments.

14.35 Mr Jay is now refering to his severance or "compromise" agreement, dated February 26, 2007.

"I resigned two weeks before I actually left," Mr Coulson clarifies. "It was my decision. I went to see Les Hinton and I was very clear I was going to resign. And I did so."

14.29 Mr Jay refers to a story relating to Osborne, which would have been "harmful to his interests", due to be published by the Sunday Mirror.

The NOTW coverage of the story was favourable to Mr Osborne, Mr Jay says, saying he would be given another chance."I think the leader was saying 'here's the information', 'here's what he said about it' and make your own mind up", Mr Coulson says.

Front page headline "Top Tory, Coke and a Hooker" could in no way be described as being "easy on him", he adds.

Jay suggests the editorial line took a relatively favourable view on it.

"Had we not had a DVD promotion that day, this story would have been twice the size," Mr Coulson says.

Would you have buried the story altogether if you knew the Mirror weren't going to splash it, Mr Jay asks.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - C: what matters is what's on the front page. Not many people read the leader column. Pretty poor attempt at showing bias in favour of tories&lt;/noframe&gt;

14.27 Labour Conference Manchester 2006: Gordon Brown told Coulson he had it on very good authority he would be appointed editor of the Sun when Rebekah Wade was promoted, Inquiry hears.

Coulson says he took that with a pinch of salt: "I didn't frankly believe Rupert Murdoch would have had that conversation with him,. I came away believing it was an attempt by Mr Brown to impress on me his closeness with Mr Murdoch."

14.24 Referring to the period 2005 to January 2007, Mr Coulson says:

"The explicit issue of 'will you support us' was never asked of me at that time directly. I think that politicians from both sides were seeking to get their message across and hope it would be received by us in a positive light."

"The agenda for me is to work out if the party he represented would best serve the interests of NOTW readers and I had some ideas of what constitute that."

14.25 Human rights act may have come up in conversation

14.23

It was the NOTW that came up with the headline "Hug a Hoodie" and I don't think that was particularly helpful for Mr Cameron

I don't that the NOTW ever explicitly supported Mr Cameron, Mr Coulson says. We did employ William Hague as a columnist and I think he expressed a preference.

At that stage, I don't think I formed a clear view of my own preference, he adds.

14.19 When asked about the NOTW's support for Tony Blair, Mr Coulson says: "I felt the NOTW best interests would be best served by Tony Blair. On balance, we felt that was the best way to go."

The Sun and the NOTW were separate papers, and he does not recall any conversation with Rebekah Brook about the endorsement. Also doesn't remember hearing from Murdoch on the issue. "I didn't have a conversation with him. I don't think it happened. [About the 2005 election].

"I was determined that we would spend a reasonable amount of time with politicians from both parties and then we would make up our mind."

I thoroughly enjoyed my time working for him. In the interactions I had with him, he was warm and supportive. I wasn't particularly close to him in that regard; I wouldn't want to overstate it.

Did you turn down the opportunity to become editor of the Daily Mirror, Jay asks. "There were conversations," Coulson says.

14.14

My job as editor was to as best I could establish where the News of the World readership was. To try and reflect; more follow than lead.

There are some issues that as an editor you would want to champion, but generally speaking a successful newspaper is one that's in tune with its readership. I don't think you can get readers to do anything.

14.12 Coulson says there were occasions when Murdoch asked about circulation but "quite often he wouldn't even mention it."

My job as editor was to produce a sucessful newspaper.

14.11 Wasn't he interested in scoops and front pages? "I might tell him if we had a good story but not always, by any measure," Coulson says. He may well have spoken about circulation figures.

14.10 Murdoch would call sometimes on a Saturday night. Coulson says he would describe it as irregular - sometimes a few times a month, sometimes you wouldn't hear from him for months. In terms of content, "I don't remember any conversations with him actually". They did talk about the sports pages and would discuss politics generally.

14.07 When asked whether they knew one another's political allegiances, he says she knew he worked for the Conservative Party, so that was pretty clear. As to her personal beliefs, "I have no idea".

Was she close to certain politicians, My Jay asks? Yes, he replies.

14.06 Hasn't spoken to Rebekah Brooks in a while, but she is a friend, he says. "I would not say even that we spoke every week," he says.

14.05 Mr Jay mentions reports of a personal diary; Mr Coulson says that is not correct. He also had some notes from his work, he says.

14.04 Mr Jay mentions the constraints placed on them by the police inquiry

14.03 The Inquiry hears a brief outline of Mr Coulson's working history:

1994 to 1998: Edited the Bizarre column.

2000: Made deputy editor of the News of the World under Rebekah Wade.

January 2003: Appointed editor of the News of the Works

January 2007: Resigned

June 2007: Appointed as Director of Communications to the Conservative Party

July 9, 2007: Started work.

May 2011: After last general election appointed Director of Communications at Downing Street

12.59 The hearing will now break to lunch. It will resume at 2pm, when we will hear from Mr Coulson.

12.56 With hindsight perhaps there would have been scope for me to have sought some informal guidance from the inquiry, Mr Mullin says.

"I do apologise for the trouble this is costing the inquiry and the trouble you've had to go to today. That wasn't our intention. We are motivated only by trying to get to the bottom of this issue, as is the Inquiry.

"Alright," Leveson concedes, before thanking him for coming. Although, he adds, he "used the force of law to require him to", so he didn't have much choice.

12.53 My job is to put in the public domain the key question that has to be answered in this affair,"Mr Mullin says. "I think putting it out in the public mind before Mr Cuolson gives evidence is perfecctly defensibly in journalism. We have followed this story for five years... it's quite important to readers."

"We can dance around the topic Mr Mullin", Leveson says. "Do you understand why I might be concerned about this order of events?"

"I fully understand that. Of course I do," Mr Mullin acknowledges.

Leveson:

It might be said that for you the scoop was just too irresistable. Would that be fair?

Mullin:

No I don't think so. I think if we'd been that excited about it, we might have put it on the front page.

Leveson says perhaps it should be a message to everybody not to look at the statements before they are heard.

12.45 Leveson poses question of whether he could have worked backwards from the statement.

"I am very anxious to ensure that the evidence that we're going to deal with is presented in an orderly fashion. I'm not trying to censor it, I'm not trying to keep it secret. Tonight, everybody will see it and this afternoon we will discuss it, but the risk is that by doing what you've done you've created a dialogue in the public with questions being asked and allegations being made before we've even heard it.

"That is likely to disrupt the process I'm trying to advance"

Mr Mullin says: "We may not be the greatest newspaper in the world - we may not even be the greatest newspaper in our own building, but we're honest journalists and we're trying to do our jobs as best we can. It was our misfortune that by good, honest journalism we got this statement after we had already got this story."

"I might take issue with the words good, honest," Leveson interjects.

12.44 "My view is that we had three sources for the story," he insists. "I thought that that meant the order did not apply to our story. Nothing that appeared in our story didn't come from the three sources."

12.43 In retrospect it would have been much better all round if I hadn't read it, Mr Mullin admits.

The effect of reading the statement was that the newspaper now had a fourth source of information, the court hears.

"Had we been a daily newspaper we would have been perfectly able to have gone ahead and published the story on Thursday before we received the statement," Mr Mullin explains. "The story stands absolutely on what we had." He did not view it as a fourth source of information.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a signed statement frmo Mr Coulson telling you about his shareholdings is not further corfirmation of the matter, he is asked.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - David Barr, counsel, trying to tell him he should have sat on it because he knew it &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.39&lt;/strong&gt; Last last Thursday the IoS received Mr Coulson's statement to the Inquiry, we hear. Did it come to you from someone who was within the confidentiality circle, Mr Mullin is asked. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; He replies he is not prepared to go any further than his witness statement. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Was it revealed through an intermediary or subterfuge? &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;"Not from subterfuge on our part but beyond that I can't comment any further," &lt;/i&gt;Mr Mullin says. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.38 &lt;/strong&gt;The court hears details of an order which reads in part: "Prior to its publication on the Inquiry website, no witness statement... shall be published or disclosed whether in whole or part outside the confidentiality circle". &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.37 &lt;/strong&gt;It is right that at all material times you knew about and were aware of the content of the restriction order? &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Mr Mullin agrees. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.36 &lt;/strong&gt;He is being asked to respond on the circumstances in which his newspaper came to publish an article on Andy Coulson on May 6. As editor, he is responsible for what is published and was personally involved in the decision, we hear. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.35 John Mullin, &lt;/strong&gt;editor of the &lt;i&gt;Independent on Sunday&lt;/i&gt;, is appearing before Leveson. He is now being sworn in. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.30 &lt;/strong&gt;Concludes "short opening remarks" by noting an apparent similarity of thinking between Murdoch's testimony and Blair's memoir: if either side is invited to meet with the other, "you go". &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12.25 &lt;/strong&gt;The focus is on appropriate conduct between polticians and the press, he explains. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;iframe src="http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/html/TwitterEmbed/Version1/web3393.html" width="460" height="115" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" id="tweetframe20054750651652915416054502851336649343"&gt;&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: ian katz - Jay says &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt; could make recommendations to change ministerial code to require more transparency&lt;/noframe&gt;

12.19 Some of those following the Inquiry closely on Twitter have taken Mr Jay's speech as an opportunity to indulge in a little light relief:

12.05 Mr Jay is making his opening statement, outlining aspects of the next module.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: IndexLeveson - Jay: the fearlessness and vibrancy of our press is something of which we should be enormously proud &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#leveson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noframe&gt;

It may be difficult to convert rumour, hearsay and surmise into hard fact., he concedes.

11.45 Lord Leveson addresses the court:

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Mark White - Lord Justice &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#leveson&lt;/a&gt; now addressing inquiry to set out parameters of the next phase, the relationship between the press and politicians&lt;/noframe&gt;

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: IndexLeveson - &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;: has the relationship, which is of critical importance to our democracy, got out of hand? Does it need to be recalibrated?&lt;/noframe&gt;

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Ross Hawkins - &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;: no intention of letting Inquiry be drawn into party political debate&lt;/noframe&gt;

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: T Portilho-Shrimpton - &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;: will not be making a judgment on whether there's been a breach of the ministeri&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;iframe src="http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/html/TwitterEmbed/Version1/web3387.html" width="460" height="115" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" id="tweetframe20053809063121715216806548641336647162"&gt;&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Ian Dunt - &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;: I also won't talk about "fitness or suitability of Rupert Murdoch"&lt;/noframe&gt;

Criminal investigations and prosecutions must not be put in peril, he adds. Critically, he will not make judgments on whether there have been breaches of the ministerial code.

11.34 The Telegraph'sGordon Rayner reports the Independent on Sunday editor will appear next, in order to explain articles based on a leak of Mr Coulson's witness statement.

11.30 Lord Leveson thanks Viscount Rothermere for attending. His evidence is now finished and the court will take a short break.

11.25 Rothermere elaborates about the relationship with those in power who may appear in newspapers:

Sometimes it's hard to make friends and keep them, but that is the cost of doing the job properly and that is my duty.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Rothermere: you have to be an outsider to own a newspaper. You have to have a degree of aloofness. &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noframe&gt;

If there is a matter of industry he has a particular view on, such as the EU privacy directive, and he want the minister in charge to understand, he says he believes the best form to have that conversation is in their office, with public servants present, on the record.

He doesn't like mixing business with pleasure, he adds.

If I use my access to bore them with my particular problem then I think that's not very good manners.

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Hacked off - Rothermere: I'm the sort of person who likes to do business, and then there's pleasure, and I don't really mike mixing the two &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noframe&gt;

11.24 Leveson says he must consider whether newspapers really do hold each other to account.

Rothermere agrees the Guardian's articles [into the phone hacking] is an example of the press regulating itself.

"It's the job of our institution to hold people accountable," he adds. "Including members of our institution. Including myself."

11.15 Rothermere says it is hard to imagine a free commercial press which is not run by commerical interests, whether newspapers are run by corporations or families.

Most journalists on the whole are good people and want to find the truth. If I thought that a journalist was printing lies, knowing they were lies, I would expect him to be fired.

If you take authority and responsibility away from the people who should have it, if you try to create a body which has a box ticking mentality, you devolve responsibility and authority and that's quite a dangerous place to go.

Pluality is the best guard. If you get a situation where one individual becomes very powerful you do not get natural balance. In a commercial world, people can take the views that they take. It's that pluratiy which creates a rich environment of diverse thinking. It's hard to see how we could replace that.

11.06 We are now discussing any changes in press regulation. Do you feel self-regulation has not worked, he is asked. Rothermere suggests that as many members of the public do not believe self-regulation works means it has not worked.

The form of the PCC has not been able to establish a level of trust and faith for it to function correctly. That is almost certainly the case.

[But] I don't know of many instances when the PCC has asked a newspaper to do something and it hasn't complied, so on that level it has worked. It is not the job of the PCC to administer the law.

In order for self-regulation to work you would need all members of the defined industry to support it.

11.00 Now talking about the coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Rothermere has previously expressed sympathy for the family.

As a parent you would have to be inhuman not to feel deeply about what the McCanns went through. I am no different to anybody else.

Was part of the problem an unhealthy taste for sensationalism, prurience and intrusion, Mr Jay asks.

Firstly it is obviously a very big story because of the nature of it. The McCann's encouraged publicity for very good reasons. And then there was, I believe, the problems of the jurisdiction in Portugal.

A number of allegations were made which were followed up in newspapers, which we regret... It's a regretable occurance but it is the nature sometimes of journalism. I don't believe our newspaper set out to wilfully upset the McCann's. They were reporting on what they believed at the time to be true and when they realised they had made a mistake they rectified it.

10.59

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - On private detectives: Dacre told me about it, said it was not best practise and he was going to make sure he stopped it happening in future&lt;/noframe&gt;

10.59 Newspaper can use their position to have a go at or invade the privacy of people, Mr Jay says.

"There's obviously a danger of it. It's not a conduct we approve of in our company," Rothermere replies. "If we have a free press there is always a danger that some people will try and abuse that power. Certainly I do not try and do that. I am very mindful and respectful of the power our newspaper has. I respect our readers."

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Jay: is it true that Mail attacked Desmond and Desmond attacked you? Lord R: he seemed to think fact I have illegitimate son is of concern&lt;/noframe&gt;

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - R: Desmond was trying to dig up everything he could on my family, my wife's family, making things up about my parents.&lt;/noframe&gt;

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Desmond hit out because Dacre felt strongly that "pornographer" Desmond was not fit &amp;amp; proper person to own Express.&lt;/noframe&gt;

10.58

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Mark White - Lord Rothermere talking about a weekend he spent at Chequers, said: "It would have been rude to bring up business" &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#leveson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noframe&gt;

10.50 Four dinners or social occasions with Michael Gove and his wife, and three with George Osborne. What did they discuss, Mr Jay asks.

"Largely talking about the economy,"Rothermere replies. "Talking about what George's attitude was towards the crisis of the economy. With Michael and Clare it was usually about the importance of education."

10.48 Rothermere says he did not really see any politicians during that time, other than two meetings with Ed Vaizey and Jeremy Hunt. "I don't think I've ever spoken to Vince Cable in my life," he adds. "It's not my job to lobby politicians".

At Chequers it was a friendly weekend and I did not want to bring up business. It's sort of rude to do that. With Hunt and Vaizey we had a strict agenda and I didn't think it was appropriate to bring it up.

They did not discuss the BSkyB bid. Our concern was expressed through the alliance rather than individually, he adds.

10.44 Now speaking about the alliance against the BSkyB bid. Rothermere says the idea of how powerful the merger was going to be took a while to sink in - it took the details of the report into it to bring it home.

10.43

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - George Osborne and his wife stayed with the Rothermeres for a weekend in Nov 09. Hunt went for Sunday lunch at Lord R's house.&lt;/noframe&gt;

10.41 Was there a sense of getting closer to the party expected to be in government to safeguard the commercial interest of the paper, Mr Jay speculates. Rothermere replies:

Obviously it's important to have a good commercial relationships with all governments and I make no apology for that. But did we seek to familiarise ourselves with extra favours? No we didn't and there's no reason for us to do that. There were no favours we sought anyway.

10.35 He reveals he sent one text to Clegg and one to Cameron after a public debate at the last election, saying congratulations on a job well done.

Admits he used to tease Paul Dacre about his affinity with Gordon Brown. "Personally I like Gordon very much," he says.

10.33 Mr Jay moves on to the relationship with politicians.

Politicians would like to talk about their general issues and what they are trying to achieve, and its very interesting to listen to them.

In his experience, they don't like talking about special interests unless it is in a formal meeting, he adds. "When it comes to personal engagements they try and impress you with what they are trying to do for the country."

They might complain about the fact the paper is not supporting them but they don't talk about commercial interests, he says. Sometimes they feel the paper has been hard on them and they try to implore on me to have some sort of influence. I tell them that will not be the case," he says.

10.30 If Dacre launches a campaign he does not feel the need to necessarily tell me about it and nor should he, Rothermere says.

10.29 At election time, the paper tends to support on particular party, Mr Jay ventures.

A good editor reflects the views of his readership. The area of concern I would have is if Paul went off on a wing and supported a party the readership did not believe it.

A great editor should have an affinity with readers and fight a case they believe in, working in "collusion", he adds.

It is not a reflection of opinion but anticipation, My Jay says. Rothermere replies:

It may not necessarily be leading opinion but highlighting an opinion.

10.25 When asked about Rupert Murdoch's views on the MailOnline [he suggested the website used other people's work], Rothermere says he does not get involved in that level of control.

10.22

&lt;noframe&gt;Twitter: Gordon Rayner - Jay: how do you measure reputation? Rothermere: we wouldn't be having this inquiry if press reputation not tarnished &lt;a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Leveson" target="_blank"&gt;#Leveson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noframe&gt;

10.19

I can see why people have concerns for the press. Some elements of our industry have not necessarily acted in the right way. However, I feel pretty confident that our newspaper has acted ethically.

10.17 Does he feel the paper has ever gone too far, Mr Jay asks.

"Sometimes we have breached...and issued apologies. And I of course regret those instances."

10.15 "At times, inevitably, the paper will do something which makes one feel uncomfortable", he says. But however uncomfortable it makes him feel, the editors are responsible.

When asked which types of stories this refers to, he says it is largely not on political grounds. It may be around friends of mine, people I have a high regard for who are being attacked in the newspaper, or sensitive stories about people I feel for on an empathetic level. "But I try and keep those feelings to myself," he adds.

Politicians of all parties express their feelings about things that have appeared in the newspaper. If it is something that he thinks has merit he may refer it to Paul (Dacre), who can look into it, he says.

10.15 Rothermere says it is very important for him to not exhibit partisan political views. He does not want to influence editors, he adds.

10.13 "I feel that it's my job to protect the independence of editorial," he says. "I think that's what gives us value."

10.10 Rothermere elaborates:

My family have always had a tremendous pride in the newspapers we produce and the journalists who produce them. This is something I care deeply about.

We also have a fundamental belief in those who work for us; having faith and trusting them.

Our company has the courage to think innovatively and try new things.

10.07 If people want to read more celebrity stories online then we provide it for them, but it's a "mixed bag", he adds.

10.06 Rothermere says that the MailOnline has a global footprint. It is one of the most looked-at newspaper sites in the world, he says, and it is growing fast. It is built on the fundamental beliefe of trusting journalism rather than technology.

09.46 Last week, we heard from The Telegraph's Political Editor Robert Winnett, who outlined what we may expect from this week's hearings:

The hearings are set to overshadow a key week for the Prime Minister who had hoped to regain the initiative by unveiling the Coalition’s policy agenda for the next year.

However, the week is likely to be dominated by renewed questions over the decision to appoint Mr Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World, as a key Conservative adviser.

Dozens of private text and email messages between Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks are also expected to be made public, along with details of the close relationships enjoyed by her and several senior members of the Government.

Both Mr Coulson and Mrs Brooks have been arrested as part of the police investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World. The Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether Mrs Brooks should face charges over conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Lawyers for the Leveson Inquiry, which is looking into the relationship between politics and the media, will not question the pair about the phone hacking allegations. They are expected to focus on the relationship between News International and Mr Cameron’s administration.

09.40 As you will recall, Mr Coulson is part of an ongoing criminal investigation into phone hacking. He is not, therefore, expected to be questioned over any of the allegations, with today's hearing focusing instead on his relationship with politicians.

09.20 Giving evidence today is Viscount Rothermere, the proprietor of DGMT, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday; and Andy Coulson, who edited the News of the World from 2003 until 2007.

Coulson later became David Cameron's communications director, before resigning in January last year over continued media coverage of phone-hacking.